"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 11:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:38:27 on
Sat, 10 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:

Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

Probably because the disruption is creating capacity for which demand
already exists. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the entire
Underground/NR complex is just as busy after the LU northern ticket
hall, direct links from Midland Road LL and the KX western ticket hall/
piazza works are finished - it would prove that the improvements were
done about 5-10 years too late.

By 'Midland Road LL' do you mean the [currently unused] entrance at the east
end of the St Pancras domestic concourse - which will also add MML and the
Kent Domestic pax into the passageway to the Northern ticket hall?

I am unaware of any 'direct' connection from the low level platforms...

Paul

On 12 May, 20:56, "Paul Scott" wrote:
By 'Midland Road LL' do you mean the [currently unused] entrance at the east
end of the St Pancras domestic concourse - which will also add MML and the
Kent Domestic pax into the passageway to the Northern ticket hall?

Peter Hendy recently cited the Thameslink move as a major cause of
overcrowding because passengers who used to have a direct route to the
tube platforms are now using the same barriers and escalators. Giving
them a separate ticket hall ought to fix this, even if it's not a
direct route. It'll also more evenly distribute passengers along the
platforms (which can't come soon enough on the Northern Line).

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In message , at 20:56:34 on
Mon, 12 May 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
By 'Midland Road LL' do you mean the [currently unused] entrance at the east
end of the St Pancras domestic concourse - which will also add MML and the
Kent Domestic pax into the passageway to the Northern ticket hall?

It's not intended to be the exit for MML passengers - hence the way the
escalators from the MML platforms dump you too far south to be useful.

Someone posted a diagram with the flows on it a couple of months ago.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:19:22 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:52:42 on Sun,
11 May 2008, Stephen O'Connell remarked:
It's just not economic to keep all that stuff, and the
staff to operate it, hanging around for a few trains a day.

They do it at Ashford Int don't they?!

On a much smaller scale. I don't recall them ever having more than a
couple of ticket barriers and one x-ray machine in use, for example.

Also keeping an intermediate station open for just a few trains a day
must be a much simpler matter than retaining a second terminal, and a
second route into London. Keeping Waterloo open in parallel with St
Pancras was certainly the original intention. Presumably, if nothing
else, removing the Eurostar trains' ability to run on thir rail would
have saved some costs, and was only possible once Waterloo had ceased
to be used as a terminal

Martin

On 13 May, 07:39, Martin Rich wrote:


Also keeping an intermediate station open for just a few trains a day
must be a much simpler matter than retaining a second terminal, and a
second route into London. *Keeping Waterloo open in parallel with St
Pancras was certainly the original intention. *Presumably, if nothing
else, removing the Eurostar trains' ability to run on thir rail would
have saved some costs, and was only possible once Waterloo had ceased
to be used as a terminal

Martin

Eurostar did hold off from making any public decision about Waterloo
for a while, but I think you'll find that there was very little chance
indeed of keeping the original international station along with St
Pancras.

Several reasons: (1) Removing third rail capability is not just a
matter of taking off the shoes: you can also dispose with some clunky
onboard transformers, and so on. Eurostars are burdened with several
on-board systems as it is, and losing one of them -- 750V DC -- was
welcome. (2) There is no way that Eurostar wanted to stay on any part
of the restricted loading gauge domestic network: the next generation
Eurostar may be double deck, according to CEO Richard Brown, and it
will certainly be UIC 'B' at least. That rules out Waterloo in the
longer term anyway. (3) The long international platforms at Waterloo
are wanted to increase domestic capacity, although the passenger
routes underneath will have to be reconstructed for commuter rather
than international flows. (4) The business case for keeping Waterloo
as well didn't stand up in any case -- even if (1) and (2) didn't come
into it.

Waterloo was always a compromise, because Britain didn't have a decent
LGV to the Tunnel from the start. Happily, the need for such a
compromise (third rail TGVs, for heaven's sake) is now history.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

(1) Removing third rail capability is not just a
matter of taking off the shoes: you can also dispose with some clunky
onboard transformers, and so on. Eurostars are burdened with several
on-board systems as it is, and losing one of them -- 750V DC -- was
welcome.

Given that the third rail supply is DC, I don't think the systems that
you would no longer need would have included transformers, though your
fundametal point is a sound one

Martin